Reply to thread

Message: [QUOTE="TenEightyOne, post: 12056821, member: 146813"] Seems clear to me - you're suggesting that the car would be programmed to take a greater amount of life to save the passengers whatever. I think it's you who misunderstood the comment that you were initially responding to. Of course [USER=204631]@AJHG1000[/USER] is right: driverless vehicles (or any safety protocol charged with human life) should always [I]consider[/I] saving their charges. What sort of system wouldn't consider that? You seem to have prejudged every case in which such a consideration is made as preferring the lives of the passengers, one might say that you've actually removed the consideration aspect and instead presumed a default outcome. That was logically incorrect, as I've already pointed out. The fallacy around driverless vehicles is that their operation is a zero-death undertaking. Such an outcome is a veeeery long way away. A much closer outcome is a huge reduction in the number of deaths through the elimination of human error. [/QUOTE]